Finite Element Analysis and Biomechanical Testing of the New MiniMIS Short Stem

Abstract

Introduction In hip arthroplasty a trend towards short stem prostheses is observed. The aim of this study is to investigate the finite element analysis and biomechanical fatigue performance of a new short stem prosthesis.

Methods A finite element analysis was used to simulate the stresses during neck and stem loading according to the ISO standards. Numerical analysis with applied forces of up to 6 kN were performed in the vertical direction on a femoral neck-preserving stem (MiniMIS). During experimental testing, 10 million cycles with a maximum load of 5.34 kN using the worst case of a XL ceramic head (36 mm) were applied. This was followed by a Locati test, where the load was increased until failure of the stem.

Results For all stems, stress values below the limits according to the ISO 5832-3 standard (yield strength of 800 N/mm²) were calculated by the finite element analysis. In the biomechanical tests, the total number of 10 million cycles with a maximum load of 5.34 kN was reached in all cases without any visible signs of implant damage. The estimated load to failure after stem testing was 2.16 kN (required by ISO 7206-4: 1.2 kN) and after neck testing > 9.35 kN (required by ISO 7206-6: 5.4 kN).

Summary The presented finite element calculation and subsequent biomechanical testing show that the design of this stem meets the essential mechanical requirements given by the ISO and a material failure is not expected in all variants tested under the applied boundary conditions.

Key words

finite element analysis - hip - shortstem

• References/Literatur

• 1 Adelani MA, Keeney JA, Palisch A. et al. Has total hip arthroplasty in patients 30 years or younger improved? A systematic review hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471: 2595-2601
• 2 Huo SC, Wang F, Dong LJ. et al. Short-stem prostheses in primary total hip arthroplasty: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016; 95: e5215
• 3 Pogliacomi F, De Filippo M, Paraskevopoulos A. et al. Mini incision direct lateral approach versus anterior mini invasive approach in total hip replacements: results 1 year after surgery. Acta Biomed 2012; 83: 114-121
• 4 Salemyr M, Muren O, Ahl T. et al. Lower periprosthetic bone loss and good fixation of an ultra-short stem compared to a conventional stem in uncemented total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2015; 86: 659-666
• 5 Stadler N, Lehner J, Trieb K. Prospective mid-term results of a consecutive series of a short stem. Acta Orthop Belg 2016; 82: 372-375
• 6 Amenabar T, Marimuthu K, Hawdon G. et al. Total hip arthroplasty using a short-stem prosthesis: restoration of hip anatomy. J Orthop Surg 2015; 23: 90-94
• 7 Wacha H, Domsel G, Herrmann E. Long-term follow-up of 1217 consecutive short-stem total hip arthroplasty (THA): a retrospective single-center experience. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2018; 44: 457-469
• 8 Trieb K, Fialka C. Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures: Classification and Therapy. Z Orthop Unfall 2016; 154: 639-653
• 9 Park KJ, Menendez ME, Barnes CL. Perioperative Periprosthetic Fractures Associated With Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32: 992-995
• 10 Trieb K, Fiala R, Briglauer C. Midterm Results of Consecutive Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures Vancouver Type A and B. Clin Pract 2016; 6: 871-874
• 11 Taylor M, Prendergast PJ. Four decades of finite element analysis of orthopaedic devices: Where are we now and what are the opportunities?. J Biomech 2015; 48: 767-778
• 12 Reggiani B, Leardini A, Corazza F. et al. Finite element analysis of a total ankle replacement during the stance phase of gait. J Biomech 2006; 39: 1435-1443
• 13 Ruggiero A, Merola M, Affatato S. Finite Element Simulations of Hard-On-Soft Hip Joint Prosthesis Accounting for Dynamic Loads Calculated from a Musculoskeletal Model during Walking. Materials (Basel) 2018; 11: E574 doi:10.3390/ma11040574
• 14 Cilla M, Borgiani E, Martínez J. et al. Machine learning techniques for the optimization of joint replacements: Application to a short-stem hip implant. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0183755 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0183755
• 15 Farhoudi H, Fallahnezhad K, Oskouei RH. et al. A finite element study on the mechanical response of the head-neck interface of hip implants under realistic forces and moments of daily activities: Part 1, level walking. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2017; 75: 470-476
• 16 Elliot BJ, Gundapaneni D, Goswami T. Finite element analysis of stress and wear characterization in total ankle replacements. J Mech Behav Biomed 2014; 34: 134-145
• 17 Schnurr C, Schellen B, Dargel J. et al. Low short-stem revision rates: 1–11 Year results from 1888 total hip arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32: 487-493
• 18 Briem D, Schneider M, Bogner N. et al. Midterm results of 155 patients treated with a collum femoris preserving (CFP) short stem prosthesis. Int Orthop 2011; 35: 655-660
• 19 Pipino F, Molfetta L. Femoral neck preservation in total hip replacement. Ital J Orthop Traumatol 1993; 19: 5-12
• 20 Köhler J. Nullbruchlinie der Dauerfestigkeit. Materwiss Werksttech 2008; 39: 654-658
• 21 Budde S, Windhagen H, Lerch M. et al. Clinical and radiological results after implantation of the femoral neck preserving Delfi M hip prosthesis: a case series. Technol Health Care 2012; 20: 85-93
• 22 Choi YW, Kim S. The Short-term Clinical Outcome of Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Short Metaphyseal Loading Femoral Stem. Hip Pelvis 2016; 28: 82-89
• 23 van Oldenrijk J, Molleman J, Klaver M. et al. Revision rate after short-stem total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of 49 studies. Acta Orthop 2014; 85: 250-258
• 24 Mjaaland KE, Svenningsen S, Fenstad AM. et al. Implant survival after minimally invasive anterior or anterolateral vs. Conventional posterior or direct lateral approach: an analysis of 21,860 total hip arthroplasties from the Norwegian arthroplasty register (2008 to 2013). J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017; 99: 840-847